Re: [exim] Has anyone done this?

Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:

> At 8:38 am +0000 2005/03/06, Matt Fretwell wrote:
>
>> Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not usually quick to come to Marc's defence, but as long as he's
>>> not using this as a block/noblock test but as an input to a decision
>>> tree or a bayesian system, it could be quite useful.
>>>
>>> He says that if he finds 587,465 and 783 open, he considers this a
>>> non-spam indicator. I agree. What he doesn't say is that he will
>>> consider the message likely spam if those ports are not open. Which
>>> would be wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> The above, if that is the way it was intended, I will digress and
>> concur
>> with, (to some degree). However, with it being tagged onto his existing
>> thread, the implementation scenario is the questionable part.
>
>
> I am sorry to say
> but logics has only one way.
> I too don't usually come
> to Marc defences as one.
> This time I think say one might
> that his statement was (almost)right.
>
> Ok, I am not a poet, and of course his proposed negative test (as in
> non-spam test) will probably add nothing to the usual criteria, but
> the real problem with his test is not with its validity, it is its
> non-cacheability (ouch!).
>
> g
>
Hey - if I have a bad idea - don't worry about coming to my defense. ;)

--
Marc Perkel - marc@???

Spam Filter: http://www.junkemailfilter.com
    My Blog: http://marc.perkel.com
My Religion: http://www.churchofreality.org
~ "If it's real - we believe in it!" ~